Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: COPY with hints, rebirth

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY with hints, rebirth
Date: 2012-02-29 18:14:04
Message-ID: CAFNqd5Xffz2DxBDcpqY=Ok7=L2v46TOpi_nhtRHjhwr0rajoGQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.

For the "common case," would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
[Writing the pre-frozen tuple]?

If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture WAL, then the COPY
wouldn't be replicable, right?
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2012-02-29 18:15:53
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-29 18:12:08
Subject: Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group